Why do people choose differently?

[Amy.G]

It's interesting that your comparison is that God made grass green and dirt brown.

Let me ask you the question another way. Do you believe that we are who we are because of the choices we make? That's a very popular theme in movies and novels these days, but I don't want to assume you agree with it. There's a follow-up point but I don't want to waste time on it if you don't believe that.

My point about the grass and the dirt was that none of us has all the answers to the "why" questions.

I don't believe in pop psychology. I don't accept people's excuses for why they do what they do. "My childhood was lousy, so that's why I'm a lousy person." God holds all of us accountable for the decisions we make. The Bible makes it clear that God has revealed Himself, therefore we are without excuse.

I believe as stongly in free will as you believe in election. Just because I can't tell you why someone accepts grace doesn't mean that we don't have the choice. It doesn't make free will untrue.

I could ask you why does God choose one person over another for salvation? But, I don't think you know why. And if what you believe is true, it doesn't matter why. Just as if what I believe is true, it doesn't matter why one chooses God and the other doesn't. The truth is the truth, even if we don't understand every tiny detail.
I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. We are both saved. We are both united in Christ and that's what matters. Someday, we'll both have all the answers and by that time it won't matter anymore who was right and who was wrong.

 

[npetreley]

I believe as stongly in free will as you believe in election. Just because I can't tell you why someone accepts grace doesn't mean that we don't have the choice. It doesn't make free will untrue.

Nothing is true just because someone sincerely believes it.

I could ask you why does God choose one person over another for salvation?

That would not be a fair question because I'm not God. You may not be able to answer my question, but it's a fair question. I'm asking you about your insight into the difference between humans, and you're a human, right?

If you'll allow me, I'll take one last shot at getting an answer. You said the difference might be that you're less hard-headed than another person, and that could be why you chose Christ and he didn't.

Let's give the unsaved man a name, just to make this easier. His name is Joe.

Let's stop beating around the bush and say what the above argument about being hard-headed really means. Why? Because you can put anything you want in that place, and it's still the same argument. I chose Christ because I am more <place good quality here> than Joe, who is more <place bad quality here>. Or more simply:

"The reason I chose Christ and Joe didn't is because I'm better than Joe."

You might be surprised to hear that I would say you ARE better than Joe. We might differ as to why, and how you got that way. But are we on the same page so far?

 

[Timtoolman]

Let me help you out Amy. Who is the real special person here? Who are the REAL people saying they are special or God sees something in them that makes God want them and them only.

If I offer a car to all on this board and say only half take it who can brag on anything? The ones who took the car can't because all others were offered the same thing. Some didn't want it and they could care less that you chose to accept the car. You see no one can brag on the gift at all because all are offered the same thing. Now if I just said you and you etc I want to give a car too. Those who I chose have a right to say I am special I recieved the car and you didn't!

That is how a calvinist sees himself. Rather he claims God chose him for His own pleasure (there has to be a motive behing pleasure also) or whatever reason. He sees himself as special in the eyes of God and the others are not!

The Bible is clear and gives many reason why those reject Christ. It ALL points directly to free choice. You have to not allow the calvinist to make up all the terms and def. You can't allow them to go down their path of theology without correcting their unbiblical thinking.

 

[Tom Butler]

I Cor 4:7 "For who maketh thee to differ from another..."
Originally Posted by Tom Butler
Anybody want to take a crack at who the who is? And since what we have is what we received, who is the giver?

I saw that, but there's a big gap between the free-willer view and that verse. I'm trying to bridge that gap a little at a time. No fair jumping to the last page.

Oops, sorry. Reverse, reverse, reverse. All posters, Your eyes are getting heavy. You will forget what I wrote. zzzzzzz

 

[Amy.G]

I Cor 4:7 "For who maketh thee to differ from another..."
Originally Posted by Tom Butler
Anybody want to take a crack at who the who is? And since what we have is what we received, who is the giver?



Oops, sorry. Reverse, reverse, reverse. All posters, Your eyes are getting heavy. You will forget what I wrote. zzzzzzz

This verse has zero to do with election. Paul is addressing a problem in the church of people thinking their favorite preacher or leader was more special than someone else's favorite leader. Paul is telling them not to get all puffed up about it because whatever gifts they had were given to them by God and they couldn't take credit or praise for it, and that he (Paul) was their true leader and they were to immulate him.

 

[npetreley]

Oops, sorry. Reverse, reverse, reverse. All posters, Your eyes are getting heavy. You will forget what I wrote. zzzzzzz

LOL, too late. I think this thread has been derailed failry successfully.

 

[Tom Butler]

Sorry, Npet, sometimes I'm pretty dense. It was going pretty good until I spoiled things for you.

 

[npetreley]

Sorry, Npet, sometimes I'm pretty dense. It was going pretty good until I spoiled things for you.

I didn't mean you derailed it! Sorry if you took it that way!

But given that someone started going down the bragging rights path, and Amy has pretty much bowed out, I don't think it's going to go anywhere now.

 

[Allan]

Okay, check. Pride, self-centeredness, our sinful nature, etc -- many reasons why one person does not choose Christ.

Now, that leaves the other part, which remains unanswered. Why does someone choose to believe, and what made that person different from the one who stuck to his pride, etc?

What is the difference? One choose God over self. Literally rejection of self.

One chooses to believe because one receives the truth revealed to them thereby rejecting all they are.
The other chooses to not believe the same truth revealed to them, thereby rejecting all God is.

You think it is some big unanswerable mystery regarding free-will but it is not, it is only such to you due to your personal view of scripture.
It is as simple as choosing life or death.
God uses the simple things to confound the wise does He not?

All men have the same amount of sinful pride, selfishness, hated, and evil bound in him as in all others. So it is not that one has more of or less of any of these things. It is that one "chooses" the God revealed truth, which man could not know through natural means but must be revealed by God. At this point man now KNOWS something he never knew before and must decide to "accept it" or "reject it".

Scripture speaks to this CONSTANTLY.

In your own thread of Duet 30
Prov 1:22-33 (29, 33)
Acts 2:40
Rom 1:18-32
Rom 2:1-8 (7 -obey,8 -reject)
2 Thes 2:10-12

These are for starters.
God gave this choice in which they COULD be saved if they would only accept, recieve, obey, believe the revealed truth of God.

Scripture says it was their...lust...pride...and many other things as cause of their rejection but it still falls on one word or person - "THEIR". They choose death rather than life since BOTH are offered to them.

Just as savlation is to THOSE who call upon the name of the Lord.

No man saves himself but receives the salvation that is in Christ.

 

[Allan]

I Cor 4:7 "For who maketh thee to differ from another..."
Originally Posted by Tom Butler
Anybody want to take a crack at who the who is? And since what we have is what we received, who is the giver?



Oops, sorry. Reverse, reverse, reverse. All posters, Your eyes are getting heavy. You will forget what I wrote. zzzzzzz

I love it when you guys try to pull THIS verse out.

It is used completely out of context!! Paul is speaking to believers who were not acting nor living like believers should be.

1Cr 4:6 ¶ And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and [to] Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think [of men] above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

1Cr 4:7 For who maketh thee to differ [from another]? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive [it], why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received [it]?

1Cr 4:8 Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.

The Corinthians were where saying some where better than other (in part we know this is because of the manifested spiritual gift of tongues with they exhaulted ( - ch 12 and 14) and Paul is saying you are all the same (in honor) and you have nothing spiritually that you can take credit for getting because of who you are or what you have done. So in context it is ONLY speaking to a situation of believers contending for greater prominance and stature in the church over others AND NOTHING MORE.

It is true that everything we receive is of God, for every good thing is of God. But it can not be used to substantiate some men get salvation because God would ONLY give it to them and no one else. It WAS offered to them. But those who received it, received it at the hand of God and not themselves by works.

Now, if you want to contend to believe God is a work, you will have to contend with scripture:

Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 ¶ But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

OR according to the NASB

4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

If there is a choice it is because one can do either possible choices.
But only when one knows their is a 'choice' to be made. Without God revealing truth to man, man does not know his need for God much less a Saviour.

 

[AresMan]

What is the difference? One choose God over self. Literally rejection of self.

Why? Choices are made for reasons, are they not? Do we make "choices" such as regarding eternal destiny out of thin air? Is it merely eeny-meeny-miney-moe?

One chooses to believe because one receives the truth revealed to them thereby rejecting all they are.
The other chooses to not believe the same truth revealed to them, thereby rejecting all God is.

This is merely a statement of the effect, and not an explanation of the cause. This merely asserts the fact that a "choice" was made. It gives no explanation for why the "choice" was made.

Also, how does one "receive" truth revealed to him vs. not "receive" truth? If someone is recognized as truth, it is received as truth, and is thereby believed. If one does not recognize something as truth, it is not received as truth, and is thereby disbelieved.

You think it is some big unanswerable mystery regarding free-will but it is not, it is only such to you due to your personal view of scripture.
It is as simple as choosing life or death.
God uses the simple things to confound the wise does He not?

It is simple, yet profound. Is it yet, a case of "Let's Make a Deal" or does it go a little deeper than that?

All men have the same amount of sinful pride, selfishness, hated, and evil bound in him as in all others. So it is not that one has more of or less of any of these things.

If all things are equal, then according to Occam's Razor, the result should be the same for all people.

It is that one "chooses" the God revealed truth, which man could not know through natural means but must be revealed by God. At this point man now KNOWS something he never knew before and must decide to "accept it" or "reject it".

If truth is revealed by God in a heart, and a heart recognizes it, and realizes that it is indeed truth, how does one "accept" or "reject" what one knows to be true (i.e. believes)? Either one believes or he doesn't. Can one actually believe something and reject it (disbelieve it) at the same time? What exactly do you mean by "accept" or "reject" something that is revealed as truth?

 

[Allan]

Does a loving God send people to hell for making "mistakes" and "accidentally" selecting the wrong decision?

No He does not. He sends men to hell for rejecting His Son and the Truth that He is.

It is a wrong decision, but it was their decision none the less.
But that decision was made in spite of God revealing to them Truth.

 

[AresMan]

No He does not. He sends men to hell for rejecting His Son and the Truth that He is.

Agree.

It is a wrong decision, but it was their decision none the less.

Agree.

But that decision was made in spite of God revealing to them Truth.

Agree. (Rom 1:20)

Now, from this thread, we seem to have established why one rejects Christ: pride, arrogance, fear, etc. (sin nature).

All things being equal, why does one accept Christ? What makes the difference? Why would a fallen sinner, dead in trespasses and sins, accept Christ?

 

[Allan]

First thing I noticed after reading this, is you kept as far away from the scriptures I gave as you could - didn't even talk about them. Kinda funny huh..:thumbs:

Why? Choices are made for reasons, are they not? Do we make "choices" such as regarding eternal destiny out of thin air? Is it merely eeny-meeny-miney-moe?

Of course there are reasons and they are specific to each person. The nuances go further than your or my brain can comprehend but the biblical fact remains "THEY" must choose between life and death, Christ or self.

This is merely a statement of the effect, and not an explanation of the cause. This merely asserts the fact that a "choice" was made. It gives no explanation for why the "choice" was made

True to a point, But I state WHY a choice was made. Rejection of self and reception of Gods truth.

Also, how does one "receive" truth revealed to him vs. not "receive" truth? If someone is recognized as truth, it is received as truth, and is thereby believed. If one does not recognize something as truth, it is not received as truth, and is thereby disbelieved

You have a very flawed statement here and is played out in sociaty every day.
But God HIMSELF states they reject the truth they KNOW and corrupt it after their lusts. It would be greatly benificail to you to actually read a persons arguement and their substantiating verses that deal preciely with this contention.

It is simple, yet profound. Is it yet, a case of "Let's Make a Deal" or does it go a little deeper than that?

No, God says Believe or Not, OBey or Not, Choose Life or Death.

If all things are equal, then according to Occam's Razor, the result should be the same for all people.

Again another flawed statement, almost absurd.
Only if all men not ONLY had the same type of heart, BUT ALSO had the same brain, the same soul, and the same understanding and desires. But since all of these are as different in each person as their finger prints it maintains that all things are not equal. The only equal thing in this is man sins and the truth each man recieves must be received or rejected. To whom much is given much will be required.

If truth is revealed by God in a heart, and a heart recognizes it, and realizes that it is indeed truth, how does one "accept" or "reject" what one knows to be true (i.e. believes)? Either one believes or he doesn't. Can one actually believe something and reject it (disbelieve it) at the same time? What exactly do you mean by "accept" or "reject" something that is revealed as truth?

Just because one knows a thing is true in no way establishes they [believe] it.
Knowing truth does not mean one beleives it. That is a silly statement.
Go back and read the verses I gave, and you will see Specifically in Rom 1 and 2 Thes, they knew the truth and received it not!
So yes, according to God the Holy Spirit a person CAN KNOW the truth and not believe it, therefore not receive it as truth but they will distort it after their own lusts.

And I mean just what I said. It isn't rocket science.

 

[Allan]

Now, from this thread, we seem to have established why one rejects Christ: pride, arrogance, fear, etc. (sin nature).

That is not what is said or at least what I said. It is because of the sin nature one CAN reject Christ and exalt self in spite of the truth God reveals to them.

All things being equal, why does one accept Christ? What makes the difference? Why would a fallen sinner, dead in trespasses and sins, accept Christ?

Because all things being equal, one CAN accept Christ and reject self due to the knowledge God reveals to them.

 

[Allan]

This is man's free will. All willfully, consciously, voluntarily choose against God by default. If anyone chooses otherwise and embraces Jesus Christ, it is because of the Holy Spirit conquering his free will, and giving him true free will.

You are right only in part.

Romans 3 is mans free-will without God intervening in any way.
It is the best refute to Peleganism there is - (Peleganism basically is Man can come to God without Gods grace and that though grace is benifial it is not neccessary.
BUT this does not deal with man as God is deal with Him by grace).

God does not conquer mans will to give him free-will.
God reveals truth to man via the Holy Spirit (convict the world of sin, His righeousness and His judgment to come) and man must beleive or reject the truths God reveals via the Holy Spirit.

If God regenerates man before salvation then this destroys any need for faith et all. A regenerated man is seeking after God, yearning after His Word, able to do righteously before God. Faith is a mute point and completely unneccessay. You can explain in you view, why God makes faith a part of the salvation of man. You just say - God is God and can do what He wants. But God has a reason for all things He does (even if we may not know it) But some things He said so we can know. Faith is part of man salvation because man is resposible for the truth God reveals to him. Since faith is not a work, we see that man is responsible not for working but believing God and what He reveals. It is ONLY THEN that those things we do (works) after the fact or in responce to the truth we receive are accounted as acceptable as we are now enabled to follow them and thereby hold in righteousness.

 

[npetreley]

Because all things being equal, one CAN accept Christ and reject self due to the knowledge God reveals to them.

That's not an answer. Why did Joe choose to eat Pizza tonight? Because he CAN? No, the fact that he can is assumed in the question, from a free-willer perspective. It isn't the reason, and it's not an answer. It sounds profound, like when you say you climb a mountain because it's there. But it's nonsense.

 

[Allan]

That's not an answer. Why did Joe choose to eat Pizza tonight? Because he CAN? No, the fact that he can is assumed in the question, from a free-willer perspective. It isn't the reason, and it's not an answer. It sounds profound, like when you say you climb a mountain because it's there. But it's nonsense.

It is not assumed but proclaimed throughout the scriptures.
I have posted NUMEROUS verses to SHOW this truth.
You see, here is your problem. You are taking your theology and using IT for scripture. I am showing scripture to validate my theology. You say it is assumed but I have shown God saying it is so.


And yes, man CAN 'choose' God for God says so and in fact command they need to do so or else they will perish/die/be judged (take your pick).

Besides I didn't ONLY state a man 'can' I said all things be equal if a man in his sin nature can 'choose to reject" Christ, it is only biblical and reasonable and logical that a man can "choose to accept" Christ in his sin nature.

Why does a man "choose" because he sees the truth and accepts the truth that he is unable to do anything to make amends and in need of Gods mercy, period.

Why does a man "not choose" because he though he sees the truth he will have no other master than his self and rejects any mercy offered therby rejecting the truth, period.

The "why" is theirs alone to decide.

 

[npetreley]

The "why" is theirs alone to decide.

First you say it's because they can. Then you admit there is a why, but can't elaborate what it is because you have no answer.

If you won't speculate on why one person makes the right choice and another makes the wrong choice, then speak for yourself. Why did YOU see the truth and succumb to it? What was the difference between you and the person who was revealed the same truth and did not succumb to it? You have less pride? You deal with your pride better? You aren't as self-centered? Why?

 

[Allan]

First you say it's because they can. Then you admit there is a why, but can't elaborate what it is because you have no answer.

If you won't speculate on why one person makes the right choice and another makes the wrong choice, then speak for yourself. Why did YOU see the truth and succumb to it? What was the difference between you and the person who was revealed the same truth and did not succumb to it? You have less pride? You deal with your pride better? You aren't as self-centered? Why?

What?

Go back and read!

I have always stated there is a why and it is their reason alone!
Why because that is how God designed it.

What is the difference? One choose God over self. Literally rejection of self.

One chooses to believe because one receives the truth revealed to them thereby rejecting all they are. It has nothing to do with a more or less than, ideaology.
The other chooses to not believe the same truth revealed to them, thereby rejecting all God is. Again it isn't about who is more of something of less but who will believe!!

You think it is some big unanswerable mystery regarding free-will but it is not, it is only such to you due to your personal view of scripture.
It is as simple as choosing life or death.
God uses the simple things to confound the wise does He not?

All men have the same amount of sinful pride, selfishness, hated, and evil bound in him as in all others. So it is not that one has more of or less of any of these things. It is that one "chooses" the God revealed truth, which man could not know through natural means but must be revealed by God. At this point man now KNOWS something he never knew before and must decide to "accept it" or "reject it".

Scripture speaks to this CONSTANTLY.

In your own thread of Duet 30
Prov 1:22-33 (29, 33)
Acts 2:40
Rom 1:18-32
Rom 2:1-8 (7 -obey,8 -reject)
2 Thes 2:10-12
PLEASE DEAL WITH THESE VERSES.

God gave this choice in which they COULD be saved if they would only accept, recieve, obey, believe the revealed truth of God.

Scripture says it was their...lust...pride...and many other things as cause of their rejection but it still falls on one word or person - "THEIR". They choose death rather than life since BOTH are offered to them.

Just as savlation is to THOSE who call upon the name of the Lord.

No man saves himself but receives the salvation that is in ChristIt and it is as simple as that, and it drives you crazy.

The 'why' is determinded by each person but scripture says it boils down to believing God Truth or rejecting Gods Truth.